magnify
Home EJIL Analysis International Criminal Justice on the March?

International Criminal Justice on the March?

Published on March 28, 2016        Author: 

March been a significant one for international criminal justice with a series of high profile judgments by the ICC and the ICTY. There has been the conviction of the former Vice President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, on the basis of superior responsibility, for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Central African Republic. Then we have had the conviction of Radovan Karadzic, including for genocide (see Marko’s commentary here). We also have the Seselj judgment due at the ICTY. In addition, last week saw two ICC cases in which charges were confirmed by the pre-trial chamber (see here and here). Confirmation of charges involves a lower standard than conviction, with the requirement at confirmation being that there “is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe” that the accused committed the crimes charged (Art. 61(7) of the ICC Statute) as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, confirmation is still a significant development and in one of those cases,  Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi, it appears that the accused will plead guilty to those charges.

What is significant about these cases is not so much the development of the law or jurisprudence but rather the sense that international criminal justice seems to be on the march in its task of speaking law/justice/truth to power. We have a judgment against a former Vice President of a state, against a leader of an entity claiming to be a state and the prosecution of parts of the leadership of non-state groups that have wreaked significant destruction and misery.

However, we have also had in March one domestic decision dealing with a serving head of state that both serves to remind those in power about the demands of international criminal justice but that also reminds us of the difficulties in the field. This is the decision of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal in the case relating to the failure of the South African government to arrest Sudanese President Bashir when he visited South Africa for the African Union Summit in June 2015 (see judgment here). As I will explain in a post tomorrow, that decision could have far reaching consequences with regard to the  immunity of heads of states from South African jurisdiction, even in cases that are unrelated to ICC prosecutions.

The facts leading to the Bashir case are well known. The ICC issued two warrants for the arrest of President Bashir in 2009 and 2010. He was invited to attend the African Union summit in June last year and while there an order seeking his arrest was sought. Although the High Court in South Africa issued an order requiring that he should not be permitted to leave the country, the South African government permitted him to do so before the High Court could consider the request on its merits. The High Court subsequently held that this was unlawful. Under Part IX of the ICC Statute, states party to the Statute, including South Africa, have obligations to cooperate with the Court. These cooperation obligations include the obligation to arrest and surrender those wanted by the Court. Despite the outstanding ICC arrest warrant for Bashir, he has travelled to numerous States many of which are parties to the ICC Statute. The failure of states to arrest Bashir and his ability to thumb his nose at the reach of ICC demonstrates the complexities of the environment around international criminal justice. The matter has been complicated both by the politics of the relationship between the ICC and African States, but also by the unresolved legal questions that arise from the fact that ordinarily international law provides that serving heads of states are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of other states, including immunity from arrest and personal inviolability when such persons are accused of committing international crimes (see the Arrest Warrant decision of the ICJ). The legal question that has arisen with respect to Bashir is whether the immunity of serving heads of state from the domestic jurisdiction of other states persists in cases in which national authorities are asked to arrest a head of state wanted for prosecution by the ICC. The matter is further complicated when, as in the case of Bashir, the head of state in question is the head of a state that is not a party to the ICC Statute.

Tomorrow, I will discuss the South African Supreme Court decision in the Bashir and explain its implications not just for South African cooperation with the ICC but for immunity of heads of states more generally. Later in the week, I will address one possible way of breaking the deadlock between African states and the ICC with regard to the Bashir saga – this is the prospect of an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the issue. This suggestion was first made by the African Union Assembly (of heads of states and government) in 2012. I discussed that suggestion (here and here) at the time but will return to it again in view of the lack of progress in clarifying the relevant legal issues that have been at play in this long running debate.

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis
 

5 Responses

  1. Jordan

    Thanks Dapo for putting this in perspective. In the areas of human rights law and ICL one should often step back and view the progress that has occurred in ten year periods. Over the last 45 years (when I started teaching), for example, significant progress has occurred with respect to effectuation of human rights and sanctions for violations. Claims are frequently made about one’s human rights and about international criminality, the need for punishment. Norms are being internalized.
    With the barbarity engaged in by ISIS, we sometimes forget the march of humankind toward greater dignity, peace, and unity. This March, as you point out, has been part of that march.

  2. […] For further commentary on the cases referred to above, and a few other developments as well, see the European Journal of International Law’s blog article, International Justice on the March. […]

  3. Dapo Akande

    Dear Jordan,

    I agree with you. I tend to think that when we assess international criminal justice or international law in general, one should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. For me, the key tests are whether the situation is better today than it was yesterday and whether we are making progress in improving the system, rather than just assessing whether the current situation is ideal.

  4. I am reading Prof. Dapo Akande’s article shown here, http://www.ejiltalk.org/international-criminal-justice-on-the-march/ and the UN report dated 19 March 2015 shown here, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50369#.Vv1JcOjmhDs , till date, such persons who had committed the crime of genocide or any other acts enumerated in Art. III of the Genocide Convention of 1948, be they constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals have not been charged with and punished for the crime of genocide pursuant to Arts. IV & VI of the same, especially by an international penal tribunal, e.g. an UN-sanctioned ICT or referral to the ICC, in order to put an end to impunity.

  5. Prof. Dapo, why is it that despite paras 7-9 of the judgment of the ICJ in the Case concerning the application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (second indication of provisional measures) (1993) ICJ Rep p325, i.e. all contracting parties have the obligation to prevent genocide…., Bosnia-Herzegovina must have the ability to obtain military weapons…, provision of military weapons etc. at B-H’s at its request, the tragedy of the Srebrenica Genocide was NOT PREVENTED?